Laboratory evaluation of 3M Petrifilms and University of Minnesota Bi-plates as potential on-farm tests for clinical mastitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to determine test characteristics and compare 2 potential on-farm culture systems for clinical mastitis, the Minnesota Easy Culture System II Bi-plate and Petrifilm. The tests were evaluated using clinically positive mastitic milk samples (n = 282) to determine their ability to differentiate appropriate treatment groups; all cases that had gram-positive growth were considered treatment candidates (n = 161), whereas cases that grew gram-negative organisms only or yielded no bacterial growth were classified as no treatment (n = 121). For Petrifilm, both undiluted and 1:10 diluted milk samples were used. To create treatment categories, 2 types of Petrifilms were used, Aerobic Count (AC) and Coliform Count (CC). Both Bi-plates and Petrifilms were read after 24 h of incubation. Analysis was conducted at various colony count thresholds for the Petrifilm test system. The combination of Petrifilms that had the highest sensitivity classified a case as gram-negative if there were > or =20 colonies present on the CC. If there were <20 colonies present on the CC and >5 colonies present on the AC, a case would be classified as gram-positive. The Bi-plate had a sensitivity of 97.9% and a specificity of 68.6%. The Petrifilm test system had a sensitivity of 93.8% and a specificity of 70.1%. There was no significant difference in the sensitivities between the tests. All Bi-plates and Petrifilms were read by a laboratory technician and a group of masked readers with limited microbiology training. Kappa values for the masked readers were 0.75 for Bi-plates and 0.84 and 0.86 for AC and CC Petrifilms, respectively. The Bi-plate and Petrifilm were able to successfully categorize clinical cases of mastitis into 2 treatments based on their ability to detect the presence of a gram-positive organism. Neither method had the ability to determine if a sample was contaminated. The results of this study indicate that both tests were able to appropriately categorize cases, which could potentially result in a reduction in the quantity of antibiotics used to treat clinical cases of mastitis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".